Wednesday, September 02, 2020


Whither Race-Neutrality in California?

In 1996, California voters approved Proposition 209 by an impressive 56-to-44 percent majority. Prop 209 amended the state’s constitution to prohibit the granting of preferences based on race or gender. It inaugurated a series of campaigns, led by businessman and University of California Regent Ward Connerly, that by 2006 had established similar prohibitions in 10 states.

A few weeks ago, in a move perfectly in sync with the racial politics of 2020, the California legislature put a referendum on the November ballot that invites voters to repeal Prop 209. The new Proposition 16 would allow the state government, and state officials, to take racial and gender “diversity” into account in their decisionmaking. In other words, it would allow officials in state government and state universities to freely discriminate on the basis of race or gender.

Listen closely, and you will hear that race-conscious preferences to achieve “equal” racial representation is the principal substantive idea that advocates for change are advancing to combat America’s fundamentally “racist” nature. Increasingly, there is no pretense that this is about eliminating discrimination.

On the contrary, it is about institutionalizing discrimination to achieve racial proportionality.

The spirit is well-captured by a recent, full-page headline in the New York Times’ Arts & Leisure section that read, “Fix Classical Music. Now.” Inside, the Times’ classical music critic, Anthony Tommasini called for abolishing blind auditions—a reform that was instituted by most top orchestras in the 1970s and 1980s to overcome a history of discrimination against women. Tommasini conceded that blind auditions might have been useful in increasing the number of women in orchestras, but now, they have become an impediment to achieving racial diversity. This sort of logic can only end in the assignment of orchestral seats on the basis of race.

This is the same thinking driving Proposition 16—just substitute “Berkeley and UCLA” for “top orchestras.” The proponents of Prop 16 believe merit-based admissions amount to some sort of institutionalized racism because, at California’s most elite public schools, they produce too many Asian Americans and not enough Blacks and Latinos.

This year’s first big assault came in April, when the University of California’s Board of Regents voted unanimously to eliminate the SAT and ACT as factors in admissions decisions. UC’s Academic Senate—the voice of the UC faculty—had, a month before, issued a unanimous report urging that the SAT and ACT be retained. But to the Regents, standardized testing had become the academic equivalent of a blind audition—an outdated obeisance to the idea of “merit” in a world where full racial representation is the dominating goal.

To those of us who study affirmative action objectively, rather than ideologically, the pervasive obsession with diversity is only half of why the unfolding story in California is so depressing. The other half is the determination of university officials, legislators, and journalists to ignore the basic facts underlying racial preferences and race neutrality in the UC system. To see this, we need to briefly revisit what brought about Prop 209 and what happened when it passed.

In the mid-1990s, when the UC Regents were considering SP-1, a forerunner to Prop 209 that would eliminate race and gender as admissions factors, the university had been using preferences on an increasing scale—particularly at its most elite campuses—for over 20 years.

The practice was steeped in cynicism; administrators at my own law school were well aware that students granted the largest preferences were likely to have mediocre grades and fail the bar exam, but keeping the racial composition of the class “in sync” with the racial composition of the applicant pool was thought essential to keep the peace.

At the undergraduate campuses of Berkeley and UCLA, preferences for Blacks and Latinos were equivalent to two hundred points on the 1600-point SAT and half-a-point on a 4-point GPA scale. Administrators ignored the reality that these preferences placed minority students at a huge academic disadvantage. The results were scandalous. Blacks at UCLA and Berkeley had four-year graduation rate averaging only 15 percent; fewer than half of these students ever received a UC degree. Black and Latino GPAs lay mostly in the bottom fifth of their classes. And although hundreds of these minority students wanted a degree in STEM fields, they had only a one in three chance of obtaining one, compared to a 70 percent chance for Asian Americans and a 65 percent chance for whites.

Moreover, UC was doing nothing to “grow” the pool of high school students qualified for UC admissions. The number of black students applying to UC was 2,159 in 1989, and 2,149 eight years later, the last year of racial preferences.

The passage and implementation of SP-1 and Prop 209, which both took effect in fall 1998, had almost miraculous effects upon this picture. There was an immediate jump in the rate at which highly qualified African American and Latino students admitted to the UCs—particularly at Berkeley and UCLA—accepted offers of admission. The obvious implication, consistent with careful research, is that minority students were very attracted by the idea of attending a school where there would be no taint of preferences on their presence and, eventually, on their degrees.

Meanwhile, the university itself made a fundamental change in its approach to diversity. Since it could no longer merely use preferences of whatever size was needed to create the desired racial mix in the freshman class, UC began to develop outreach programs to build stronger applicant pools in low- and moderate-income communities. In other words, UC began to practice true “affirmative action” as it was originally conceived in the early 1960s. UC campuses built learning partnerships with poor-performing schools. Students were helped to understand in 9th grade the set of courses they would need to take to qualify for UC admission. The state invested more in high schools, and high school dropout rates for Blacks and Latinos fell nearly in half.

The UC system continued to use preferences, but these preferences were based on socioeconomic status, not race, and they were much smaller than the old racial preferences, thereby usually avoiding the mismatch problem.

The results were stunning. Black applications within California to UC, which as noted earlier stagnated from 2,191 in 1989 to 2,141 in 1997, rose to 3,108 in 2003, 4,153 in 2008, and 5,728 in 2012. Latino applications rose even faster—by a factor of five over the 15 years after Prop 209.

Four-year graduation rates for both groups more than doubled, GPAs rose, and successful persistence in science fields rose as well. The number of Blacks receiving UC bachelor degrees rose by over 60 percent from pre-209 cohorts to those admitted 10 years later, with STEM degrees by Blacks nearly doubling. Latino bachelor degrees rose nearly 100 percent, with STEM degrees up by over 125 percent.

These were the changes for the groups that, according to the opponents of Prop 209, would be decimated by Prop 209. For whites and Asian Americans, the improvements were much less dramatic, though improvements there were. For them, the biggest and best change was to be free of invidious discrimination.

There was only one problem in this picture: UC administrators could not bring themselves to admit—much less promote—the remarkable successes of a policy they had publicly opposed. Therefore, they could not push back against protesters who demonstrated against the declines in black enrollment at Berkeley and UCLA. Instead, they aligned themselves with the protest, instituted procedures that quietly (and illegally) reinstated preferences, and, this year, have supported the abolition of the SAT requirement and the repeal of Prop 209.

We are thus faced with a fall election that will test, more severely than ever, whether the common sense of voters, and their fundamental aversion to racial discrimination, will beat back the collective efforts of California elites to make a mindless “diversity” mantra drown out the clear story told by the facts.

SOURCE




States have an obligation to offer parents school choice during pandemic closures

Across America, as public schools are choosing to not reopen or to only provide a partial in-person experience this fall, families are struggling to figure out how to ensure their kids get a good education and don't fall further behind.

The good news is, there has never been another time in America so ripe for school choice. Wouldn't it make sense if parents could take a portion of the money that state and local governments spend to educate their children and use it to seek alternatives—like private or parochial school, online education, home schooling, co-ops or other options?

The fact of the matter is, taxpayer dollars spent on public education are meant for the education of students. As such, those dollars should actually fund students, not empty school buildings.

If schools don't reopen this fall, states have an obligation to ensure children have access to other educational opportunities. On average, taxpayers pay $14,000 a year per child for K-12 public education. Allowing parents the option of taking a portion of that money and using it elsewhere is one significant step toward fulfilling that obligation.

School choice seems like an especially critical option as teachers' unions across the country protest school reopenings. Unions want schools to remain closed until their lists of demands are met, yet many of their conditions have absolutely nothing to do with ensuring the safety of children and teachers during the pandemic. Demands include such things as forcing landlords and banks to cancel rent and mortgage payments for individuals, keeping private schools closed and blocking vouchers for school choice.

One egregious example is in Los Angeles, where the LA teachers' union, United Teachers Los Angeles, wants schools to remain closed until the federal government passes "Medicare for All," police are defunded, charter schools that "compete" with the public schools are shut down and more taxpayer funding is allocated to housing for California's homeless, among other demands. The stipulations are part of what the union calls its "groundbreaking research paper" that outlines necessary conditions for safely reopening schools."

Speaking about its list of demands, UTLA's president claimed, "We all want to physically open schools and be back with our students, but lives hang in the balance. Safety has to be the priority."

Sure it does.

If safety is truly the priority, how does defunding the police ensure the safety of our kids? That just doesn't pass the straight-face test.

Of course, defunding the police is not a necessary condition for safely reopening schools. Neither are many of the other demands. Instead, some teachers' unions are shamelessly using schoolchildren and the reopening of schools as bargaining chips to push their unrelated social policy agenda. True school choice would mean that parents and students wouldn't have to be held hostage by political demands.

In addition, any plan to reopen schools needs to be centered on teacher and student safety and providing children a quality education. Decisions must be made based on the science and a school district's ability to consistently follow health and safety protocols, not on the political agendas of special-interest groups.

As a mom, former local school board member, board member of a state board of education and someone who has worked in education policy for much of my career, I am intimately familiar with issues of school safety as well as the conditions necessary to provide a quality educational experience. If schools aren't going to open this fall or plan on offering only an online or partial-classroom experience, the school choice model just makes good sense.

School choice addresses many of the issues we're facing during the coronavirus and provides better educational opportunities for every student—not just during the pandemic, but for generations of students to come. As fall quickly approaches, states must work toward making school choice a reality so students don't fall even further behind. Parents and students need options, and they need them now.

SOURCE





‘Diversity’ and ‘Inclusion’ Come Back to Bite a Minnesota University

In yet another of the seemingly endless string of jihad attacks and plots in the United States that the media almost universally ignores, Tnuza Jamal Hassan pleaded guilty Wednesday to federal terrorism charges. Back in January 2018, the winsome Ms. Hassan set a series of fires on the campus of St. Catherine University in Minnesota, after exhorting Muslim students to “join the jihad in fighting” and join jihad terror groups such as al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or al-Shabaab. Students at St. Catherine University were shocked: but their school is “diverse!” How could this possibly have happened to them?

Hassan herself gave numerous indications that she was a hardened, convinced jihad terrorist. She said that she had set the fires in revenge for supposed American atrocities on “Muslim land.” She wrote a letter to her roommates that police said contained “radical ideas about supporting Muslims and bringing back the caliphate.” She told investigators that “she wanted the school to burn to the ground and her intent was to hurt people.” There was a daycare center in one of the buildings where Hassan set fires; eight adults and 33 children were there at the time.

One student said: “I never expected it. She was a first-year student, too, and that is especially scary.” Why would a first-year student setting a series of fires around campus be scarier than a third-year student setting them? The student did not explain, but if St. Catherine University is as much of a far-left indoctrination center as other universities and colleges are today, maybe the explanation is self-evident: by the third year, students are fully indoctrinated in hatred and violence.

Another student added: “I definitely never thought that would happen. St. Kate’s is one of the most inclusive, diverse welcoming schools you can think of.” And a third: “We take pride in the safety of our school, so this was very surprising and we have a very diverse school that welcomes everyone. And to have this happen is not really expected.”

These students seem to assume that jihad terror attacks happen because Muslims find themselves in environments that are not “welcoming” and “diverse.” St. Kate’s was welcoming, inclusive, and diverse, so Tnuza Jamal Hassan should have been happy as a clam, and never thought of turning to jihad, right?

This is probably an idea that these students learned from their professors at St. Kate’s. The prevailing view among leftist professors (as well as the foreign policy establishment in Washington) is that jihad violence is the result of the evil deeds of non-Muslim countries, particularly the United States, and non-Muslim individuals who display “racism” and “Islamophobia” toward Muslims. It is a staple of jihadist discourse to retail the supposed atrocities of the U.S. military overseas, as if they were the cause of all the trouble – even Tnuza Hassan did that in her explanations for her fires.

This kind of thing leads American leftists and establishment conservatives to think that if we just adopted a more jihad-compliant foreign policy (such as Obama’s scheme of backing the Muslim Brotherhood’s “Arab Spring”), all will be well. And after every supposedly “lone wolf” jihad attack or foiled plot in the U.S., the establishment media publishes weepy stories about how unkind non-Muslims were to the poor jihadi.

Thus the onus is all on the infidels, and it is their responsibility, not the Muslim community’s or anyone else’s, to stop jihad terror attacks from occurring. If jihad attacks happen anyway, it is because they were not “welcoming” and “diverse” enough. Thus the puzzlement of the St. Kate students: their campus is so diverse, it should have been jihad-proof!

The idea that Muslims might stage jihad massacres for reasons of their own, stemming from Islamic texts and teachings — why, even to entertain that as a possibility would be “Islamophobic.” On campuses today, that possibility cannot even be considered, and you’re a racist, bigoted hatemonger even for thinking it. Don’t you realize, at this late date, that everything, everything, is the fault of the United States and the world’s worst people, white Americans? Look what they made that poor lamb, Tnuza Jamal Hassan, do!

SOURCE





Notre Dame Disavows Lou Holtz's RNC Speech Calling Biden 'Catholic in Name Only'

Lou Holtz, former football coach at Notre Dame University, spoke at the Republican National Convention, slamming Democratic nominee Joe Biden as “Catholic in name only” for his radical pro-abortion policies. Notre Dame, a supposedly Roman Catholic university run by catholic clergy, issued a statement disavowing his comments.

Over the years, Notre Dame has shown a decidedly radical liberal bent in its teachings and actions. It has taken an agnostic view toward abortion, despite the Vatican’s strong condemnation of the practice. And when it comes to political candidates who profess their catholicism, who run on their religious affiliation and support unfettered abortions in the U.S., Notre Dame leaders look the other way.

Lou Holtz never made any apologies for being Catholic, either during his career or afterward. He has gained notoriety as a sought-after speaker at Catholic and Christian functions for his advocacy and promotion of Christian beliefs. His remarks at the GOP convention about Joe Biden’s hypocrisy of portraying himself as a devout Catholic while supporting late-term abortion were entirely reasonable given the strong anti-abortion position of the church and Biden’s strong defense of abortion rights.

Just the News:

“When a leader tells you something, you’ve got to be able to count on it. That’s President Trump. He says what he means, he means what he says, and he’s done what he said he would do at every single turn. One of the important reasons he has my trust is because nobody has been a stronger advocate for the unborn than President Trump,” he said Wednesday at the convention.

“The Biden-Harris ticket is the most radically pro-abortion campaign in history. They and other politicians are ‘Catholics in Name Only’ and abandon innocent lives. President Trump protects those lives. I trust President Trump,” Holtz continued.

The criticism is valid and fair. Biden seeks the powerful Catholic vote by looking to identify with those of the Catholic faith. And yet, when it comes to a fundamental tenet of that faith, Biden comes up short.

But the Notre Dame Administration doesn’t see it that way.

Fox News:

In response to Holtz’s remarks, University President Fr. John Jenkins issued a statement saying that the former Fighting Irish coach’s “use of the University’s name at the Republican National Convention must not be taken to imply that the University endorses his views, any candidate or any political party.”

Jenkins added that “we Catholics should remind ourselves that while we may judge the objective moral quality of another’s actions, we must never question the sincerity of another’s faith, which is due to the mysterious working of grace in that person’s heart. In this fractious time, let us remember that our highest calling is to love.”

That’s rhetorical mush. What else can you do but question the faith of someone who professes belief in Catholic doctrine while openly defying it?

Another Catholic priest said on MSNBC that Holtz “has no clue” what Biden really believes.

The Indianapolis Star:

“(He) cannot look into the soul of Joe Biden,” James Martin, a Jesuit priest said on MSNBC. “I think it’s a really terrible thing to say about someone. He has no clue what’s going on inside of Joe Biden’s heart.”

That’s strange. Liberals claim they can peer into the hearts of people and discern whether they are racist, or sexist, or homophobic. But Holtz can’t point out the obvious hypocrisy of the Democratic nominee for president?

The world is becoming ever more secular and amoral. Many people find comfort and shelter in an unbending faith — the Roman Catholic faith. When someone professes belief in that faith and then denies it when politically convenient, he should be called out for it. Lou Holtz did that knowing the backlash was coming, knowing the hate that would be spewed his way.

How does that courage compare to Biden’s hypocrisy?

SOURCE




No comments: